Red state welfare has NOTHING to do with Poverty. Just because a state recieves more in federal tax revenues then it pays does not mean the state is poor.

It means they have a large un-productive class, more specifically, they have an un-proportionate amount of single mothers, poor elderly, and children on their welfare rolls. Look at all the southern states for example. If the federal government suspended all funding to the southern states we would save billions annually. Maybe with the exception of southern florida (imports) the entirety of the southern US stretching from South Carolina to Arizona are heavily dependent on government investment to provide jobs, pills, medical care, and housing for a large portion of the population, including Texas, for it has a large federal presence all over their state.

Blue states have more wealthy, more college graduates, and less single mothers and unwanted children, than their red state counterparts. Blue states essentially carry the poor blacks in the major cities, and the poor rural/suburban whites in the south.

Wealthy people stay in high tax blue states because it is better to live there than in certain parts of the country. Take that argument out to a global scale, the wealthy have no other place to move to other than the US if they care that much about their taxation.

As compared to who? Poverty rates are relative. The federal poverty level is $23k, but if you live in the midwest $23k is a lot of money, so a person living on $23k may be lower middle class. The national average is $50k salary, a $50k salary is a nice salary if you live in a lot of midwest states. The cost of living is so much lower that you dont need to make that much money.

---------- Post added 2013-01-30 at 02:27 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Daelak

It means they have a large un-productive class, more specifically, they have an un-proportionate amount of single mothers, poor elderly, and children on their welfare rolls. Look at all the southern states for example. If the federal government suspended all funding to the southern states we would save billions annually. Maybe with the exception of southern florida (imports) the entirety of the southern US stretching from South Carolina to Arizona are heavily dependent on government investment to provide jobs, pills, medical care, and housing for a large portion of the population, including Texas, for it has a large federal presence all over their state.

Blue states have more wealthy, more college graduates, and less single mothers and unwanted children, than their red state counterparts. Blue states essentially carry the poor blacks in the major cities, and the poor rural/suburban whites in the south.

Wealthy people stay in high tax blue states because it is better to live there than in certain parts of the country. Take that argument out to a global scale, the wealthy have no other place to move to other than the US if they care that much about their taxation.

As compared to who? Poverty rates are relative. The federal poverty level is $23k, but if you live in the midwest $23k is a lot of money, so a person living on $23k may be lower middle class. The national average is $50k salary, a $50k salary is a nice salary if you live in a lot of midwest states. The cost of living is so much lower that you dont need to make that much money.

The comparative costs between states is very close to being the same. The only places where you see wild changes in living costs are in large cities, i.e. New York City versus rural Georgia or Hawaii versus Chicago. One can probably make the argument that even though you get more with your money in rural Georgia you probably have the same quality of life as in NYC due to access to healthy food, a good career, community, medical access.

The comparative costs between states is very close to being the same. The only places where you see wild changes in living costs are in large cities, i.e. New York City versus rural Georgia or Hawaii versus Chicago. One can probably make the argument that even though you get more with your money in rural Georgia you probably have the same quality of life as in NYC due to access to healthy food, a good career, community, medical access.

Wrong, I have lived in NJ, NY, PA, KS, OK and TX as well as have family in SC and WA. Costs all vary ESPECIALLY HOUSING. For the price of a 1.5k sqft house in pa you could get a 2.5k sqft house in TX or larger in Topeka. It is the main reason why so many people from the north move to the south to retire. They can sell their house and buy a bigger house and have no mortgage.

Look up the salary to homeprice ratios and you will see that it is more affordable to live in the "red states"

Have you ever heard of a service economy? Because for the majority's sake, that's what the US Economy is.

With a strong manufacturing economy to back it up.

'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
Or a yawing hole in a battered head
And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
And there they lay I damn me eyes
All lookouts clapped on Paradise
All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

Wrong, I have lived in NJ, NY, PA, KS, OK and TX as well as have family in SC and WA. Costs all vary ESPECIALLY HOUSING. For the price of a 1.5k sqft house in pa you could get a 2.5k sqft house in TX or larger in Topeka. It is the main reason why so many people from the north move to the south to retire. They can sell their house and buy a bigger house and have no mortgage.

Look up the salary to homeprice ratios and you will see that it is more affordable to live in the "red states"

This is all relative. The housing cost would be lower, but the effective salaries in the more rural areas are considerably lower as well. So you could move to a southern state with no income tax like Tennessee and buy a large house but the average salary of a comparable job you had in a Northeastern state would be lower equalizing the cost.

Retiring is different because you are on a fixed income. Places like Nashville are going through a boom due to the "arbitrage" that you can do for the next 10 years here. We have an influx of new job openings in healthcare, music, state government, etc. etc. but we still have the "cheap" rental and housing costs just like the rest of the south. Now it won't be here forever and we will eventually hit the same prices as larger cities.

This is all relative. The housing cost would be lower, but the effective salaries in the more rural areas are considerably lower as well. So you could move to a southern state with no income tax like Tennessee and buy a large house but the average salary of a comparable job you had in a Northeastern state would be lower equalizing the cost.

But even manufacturing is requiring certain skills and certifications. That's why intellectual capital is absolutely necessary in our country.

Sure, absolutely, it's not the low-education blue collar manufacturing of the US of yesteryear or of present day China. It's the Boeings and the Lockheed Martins and Capital Equipment manufacturers who need CNC Milling Machine programmers and soon maybe 3D printer programmers.

'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
Or a yawing hole in a battered head
And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
And there they lay I damn me eyes
All lookouts clapped on Paradise
All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

And the ratios are the same. There is no such thing as a free lunch. The larger square footage in a house in Georgia is offset by the lowering of your salary, access to entertainment, people, and food.

And the ratios are the same. There is no such thing as a free lunch. The larger square footage in a house in Georgia is offset by the lowering of your salary, access to entertainment, people, and food.

Without actually finding all the Price to income ratios lets take this table here.

Are you saying that Philly has more things to do, then Indianapolis, Dallas, Houston all of which have a lower price to income ratios? Philly has a lower median income then Indianapolis yet the median home is almost twice as much! Yet nobody will claim Indianapolis is a poor city.

Government subsidies demand side economics doesn't work
I will simplify it so you will understand
If i take 20 dollars from a store owner and give it to a customers to buy something in the owners store which he does did the store owner make any money ?
No he didn't all he received is the money you took from him to begin with, actually he lost money because he still has to pay the cashiers wage that took back the money

Government subsidies demand side economics doesn't work
I will simplify it so you will understand
If i take 20 dollars from a store owner and give it to a customers to buy something in the owners store which he does did the store owner make any money ?
No he didn't all he received is the money you took from him to begin with, actually he lost money because he still has to pay the cashiers wage that took back the money

Think about it this way: If you take 20 dollars from a store owner that mints and prints his own currency, and has been in operation for over 200 years with a standing military to protect his raw materials to and fro, has the largest amount of loyal customers that purchase his product every year, and has an unlimited line of credit with every other store owner in the entire world, then yes 20 dollars from him to you will be an investment into a future customer.

For all who are trying to blame the drop in the economy as a result of less government spending
There was no decrease in government spending during the fourth quarter of last year. In fact, the government spent more money between October and December of 2012 than it did during the previous two quarters. So federal spending actually increased during the 4th quarter.

For all who are trying to blame the drop in the economy as a result of less government spend
There was no decrease in government spending during the fourth quarter of last year. In fact, the government spent more money between October and December of 2012 than it did during the previous two quarters. So federal spending actually increased during the 4th quarter.

Would you like some facts to go with your media propaganda?

Federal outlays by quarter:

1st: 966,188

2nd: 884,957

3rd: 809,969

4th: 907,912

Why stop there? Lets investigate the numbers further. How did government reallocated spending? So yes, they may have spent more, but if they spent less in one area in more in another it could still affect the economy. Right? All else being the same, lets say, the government spent $500m less on defense and spent $600m more on medicaid and social security. It would equate to $100m more in spending but could result in less economic output from the defense sector.

For all who are trying to blame the drop in the economy as a result of less government spending
There was no decrease in government spending during the fourth quarter of last year. In fact, the government spent more money between October and December of 2012 than it did during the previous two quarters. So federal spending actually increased during the 4th quarter.

Would you like some facts to go with your media propaganda?

Federal outlays by quarter:

1st: 966,188

2nd: 884,957

3rd: 809,969

4th: 907,912

What is so surprising about the uptick in spending in the fourth quarter? Did you hear about Hurricane Sandy?

I'm tall, and thin, with a bright red head but strike me once and I'm black instead...

Posts

1,451

Daelek: "Big long rant about how 'Red States' are all full of freeloading, non-productive losers."

Petej0: Please cite your source.

(crickets chirping)

What a crock. The red states are the ones with increasing economies right now. People are running away from Detroit, Illinois, New York, and California by the hundreds of thousands every year because these places are so fantastic? And where are they going? Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Texas, Dakota... I've never seen such a horrible case of NeoLiberal Myopia. "Dur dur dur - me no am see reality!"

What is so surprising about the uptick in spending in the fourth quarter?

Maybe the "surprise" is the fact that this thread is 100% about the fact that the "Left Wing Media" is claiming the 3.2% GDP loss is directly attributable to DECREASED spending. The data says that spending increased. All the neolibs are saying that spending DECREASED. See the point?

Why stop there? Lets investigate the numbers further. How did government reallocated spending? So yes, they may have spent more, but if they spent less in one area in more in another it could still affect the economy. Right? All else being the same, lets say, the government spent $500m less on defense and spent $600m more on medicaid and social security. It would equate to $100m more in spending but could result in less economic output from the defense sector.

Do you know if defense spending has more economic output that medicare and social security spending?

Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the nation's economic growth, contracted at an annual rate of 0.1% from October to December, the Commerce Department said Wednesday. It was the first quarterly contraction since the second quarter of 2009, amid the Great Recession.

What a crock. The red states are the ones with increasing economies right now. People are running away from Detroit, Illinois, New York, and California by the hundreds of thousands every year because these places are so fantastic? And where are they going? Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Texas, Dakota... I've never seen such a horrible case of NeoLiberal Myopia. "Dur dur dur - me no am see reality!"

Oh so is that is why in states like NY and California their GDPs are INCREASING? Stop the crap, these states are global powerhouses, and if it wasn't for them we would be a very different country. And you do know just because one state's population and GDP are increasing doesn't mean it's "stealing" from another state's?

If your premise was correct, then we should see a very noticeable decline in the GDP of California and the Northeast. Show me that is happening.

Detroit has been losing people since the 1960's from its peak of like 2 million. Makes sense, since the majority of the auto plants were outsourced to Mexico and the like. It has potential to transform into a city not so dependent on the automotive sector, but that will take some years.

The interesting thing about Texas is just how propped up it is by the federal government. I believe it has the most federal employees there, has the most military bases, and of course the dismal welfare and medical numbers there, it makes sense the government has to send billions of dollars there annually.

But please, show me how many states it would take to compare to what New York and California produce.